ArticleEmergency radiology2020
Portal phase alone is equivalent to multiphasic phase for CT diagnosis of acute non-traumatic pains in an emergency context.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate radiological diagnosis concordance between a simplified and a multiphasic computed tomography (MCT) protocol for patients presenting acute non-traumatic abdominal pains (ANTAE).
methodsDuring five consecutive months, all patients admitted in an emergency department for ANTAE were retrospectively included if they underwent MCT, including at least pre-contrast phase, late arterial phase (LAP), and portal venous phase (PVP). Clinical cases of suspected hemorrhagic conditions were secondarily excluded. For the study, two image sets, pre-contrast phase + LAP + PVP ± late phase called S1 and PVP alone called S2, were reviewed independently to give the most appropriate diagnosis with 5-point confidence scale. Diagnosis concordance and radiation dose were compared for each set of protocol by chi-square test. Linear mixed model was used to assess changes of diagnostic confidence and radiation dose.
resultsAll in all, 196 patients were included. The kappa coefficient between S1 and S2 was excellent (98.5%, CI
conclusionUsing PVP-CT alone or MCT is equivalent for the diagnosis of ANTAE if suspected acute hemorrhages are excluded. A simplified CT protocol is associated with a dose decrease of 61%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31781984What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.